Keeping donors is just as important as getting them. That’s been the focus over at The Agitator recently, and it’s a good thing to focus on.
One recent post featured the case of a Canadian organization, Animal Alliance Environment Voters (AAEV): How To Retain 70% Of New Donors. The case, coming direct from the organization, included these powerful facts:
- 70% retention rate for new donors; 90% for those who have given more than one gift.
- All new supporters come through word of mouth and earned media.
- The organization has grown.
- Net income has increased dramatically.
For all this success, they credit their excellent treatment of donors. And I’m with them all the way. That is the path to success. But then they drop this bomb about donor acquisition:
We don’t believe it is ethical to tell a donor that “your donation will save [something]” when in fact the organization is using all of the donor’s contribution and most future contributions to pay off postage, printer bills, ad buys, or TV time…. In most direct response programs, new, modest and small donors will never make a positive contribution to an organization’s mission unless they die and leave a sizable bequest.
That is not an accurate description of an organization that’s actively acquiring donors. It’s a description of an incompetent and/or unethical organization.
It’s a foolish claim to throw out there, and it seems to reflect ignorance of how fundraising works.
And if that weren’t enough, they go on to suggest that organizations should suspend all new donor acquisition for five years, and spend that time figuring out how to care for donors.
That’s like advising someone to stop eating until they have a PhD in nutrition. Five years with no new donors would put most organizations into an irreversible death-spiral. All the enlightened donor respect in the world would make no difference.
So my guard is up. These comments make me wonder if AAEV understands its own situation.
One of the hallmarks of a dying donorfile is amazing retention rates, superb campaign response, and other excellent loyalty measurements. These numbers all get better and better as the file atrophies. When you aren’t getting new donors, those who stay with you longest are your elite, the real believers.
I’ve known many organizations that were smugly proud of their retention rates — and completely unaware that they were in the middle stages of dying.
It’s possible that AAEV really does get enough new donors to keep them viable, or even growing. That’s not normal, but if it’s happening, good for them. But for now, I’m skeptical.
I can’t go along with The Agitator and say AAEV deserves a raise. I think they need an in-depth performance review. This should quickly be followed by either that raise or by termination, depending on the findings of the review.
Jeff Brooks has been serving the nonprofit community for more than 35 years and blogging about it since 2005. He considers fundraising the most noble of pursuits and hopes you’ll join him in that opinion. You can reach him at jeff [at] jeff-brooks [dot] com.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.